Chapter
Analysis of the "Melania Defense" in the Cohen Case
05:55 - 13:14 (07:18)
The statement of facts in the Michael Cohen case directly refutes the so-called "Melania Defense" by showing that Trump wanted to delay payments to Stormy Daniels and avoid public knowledge of their affair. This undermines the Defense's argument that the payments were made for personal rather than political reasons.
Clips
The opening statement given by the prosecutors in the criminal case against the Trump Organization was done to educate the public and to explain why the former president of the United States is being charged for the first time in history.
05:55 - 08:45 (02:49)
Summary
The opening statement given by the prosecutors in the criminal case against the Trump Organization was done to educate the public and to explain why the former president of the United States is being charged for the first time in history. The statement detailed how hush money payments were made to influence the outcome of a critical time in the election, and it was well done in terms of not being too legalistic.
ChapterAnalysis of the "Melania Defense" in the Cohen Case
EpisodeThe Manhattan Arraignment
PodcastProsecuting Donald Trump
The statement of facts shows how Trump wanted to delay the payments to Stormy Daniels to buy her silence about their affair, which occurred while Daniels was pregnant.
08:45 - 11:29 (02:44)
Summary
The statement of facts shows how Trump wanted to delay the payments to Stormy Daniels to buy her silence about their affair, which occurred while Daniels was pregnant. The document also addresses the "Melania defense" and shows that this case is not just based on Michael Cohen's testimony.
ChapterAnalysis of the "Melania Defense" in the Cohen Case
EpisodeThe Manhattan Arraignment
PodcastProsecuting Donald Trump
The speaker discusses the payment of mistresses and how it can be seen as wrong to pay them off, likening it to the John Edwards case.
11:29 - 13:14 (01:44)
Summary
The speaker discusses the payment of mistresses and how it can be seen as wrong to pay them off, likening it to the John Edwards case.